Divided we Fall: Division Within the National Partisans of Vidzeme and Latgale, Fall 1945

Abstract

Heinrihs Strods has shown that Latvia's national partisans were defeated primarily because of the overwhelming military odds they faced, but he added a secondary cause–the lack of unity in their ranks. This article explores the causes of such disunity and suggests that Björn Felder is right to see a blurring of ideological divisions as the Second World War came to an end; however, even at the height of summer 1945 there were some signs of tension, and as the likelihood of foreign intervention waned, fundamental tactical disagreements developed, disagreements which reflected different political pasts and differing visions of Latvia's future.

Keywords:

• Latvia
• second world war
• national partisans

Notes

Notes

1.  Oral History Centre, Daugavpils University, Interview 31.

2.  Latvian State Archives, fond 101, opis’ 8, ed. khr. 1, p. 122 (henceforth 101.8.1.122). In multi-volume files, the volume number is given in roman.

3.  101.8.63.1, 27, 31.

4.  101.8.18.67, 71.

5.  101.9.69.8.

6.  101.8.18.55.

7.  301.1.29. 46–7.

8.  I would like to thank the British Academy whose financial support enabled me to make the research trips to Latvia necessary for producing this paper. I would also like to express my gratitude to Daina Bleiere of the Institute of History in the Latvian Academy of Sciences for all her help and advice. Part of this paper was given at the XIVth Scientific Readings of the Faculty of Humanities of Daugavpils University in January 2005. At that time I also had very helpful conversations with Zigmārs Turčinskis and Inese Dreimane for which I am very grateful; neither of them is responsible for the views expressed here.

9.  ‘Rassekrecheno’, Istochnik, 13, 6, 1994, p. 114.

10.  1986.1.28785.I.18, 25, 27.

11.  1986.1.28785.I.27–9.

12.  1986.1.28785.I.45.

13.  1986.1.28785.III.10 et seq.

14.  1986.1.28785.I.224.

15.  1986.1.28785.I.31.

16.  1986.1.28785.I.35.

17.  1986.1.28785.III.158.

18.  1986.1.28785.I.54.

19.  1986.1.28785.I.36.

20.  1986.1.28785.I.31.

21.  1986.1.28785.I.31.

22.  1986.1.28785.III.27, 55.

23.  1986.1.28785.I.36, 74.

24.  1986.1.28785.I.42, 48–9.

25.  1986.1.28785.I.34–5.

26.  1986.1.28785.I.226.

27.  1986.1.28785.I.25, 74.

28.  1986.1.28785.I.27–8.

29.  1986.1.28785.I.79.

30.  For the LCC attitude to Ban[ggrave]eris, see Andersons and Siliņš (1994, p. 293); for the tensions among émigrés, see 1986.1.99.I.169.

31.  101.9.73.75.

32.  1986.1.28806.23–5, 36.

33.  1986.1.28806.20–1.

34.  1986.1.28806.38.

35.  1986.1.28806.46.

36.  1986.1.28785.III.64, 71.

37.  Under repeated NKVD interrogation, Mundere gradually revealed more about her journey, see 1986.1.22233.I.36–8, 41, 45, 160, 184.

38.  1986.1.30641.I.3, 5.

39.  1986.1.28785.III.86–7.

40.  1986.1.30641.III.76–7.

41.  1986.1.99.I.165–6, 168.

42.  1986.1.99.II.152.

43.  1986.1.99.III.95.

44.  1986.1.28785.III.86.

45.  1986.1.28785.III.89.

46.  1986.1.30641.I.143; III.71.

47.  1986.1.30641.III.72, 75.

48.  101.9.55.14.

49.  101.9.55.69.

50.  101.9.69.19.

51.  101.9.69.23.

52.  1986.1.22233.I.169.